Periods
of the history of Venezuela
The characterization and the delimitation of periods
in the history of Venezuela
raise some specific problems, besides those
characteristic of all
periodificación intent. This problems have to see
with: 1) the simultaneity of
the processes of «discovery», «it conquers» and
«colonization»; 2) the
historical lapse embraced by this processes; 3) the
location of the
same independence; 4) the location of the Republic
of Colombia (Great call
Colombia); 5) the delimitation of the contemporary
history; and 6) the
correspondence with the Eurus-western periodificación.
To this list, not
exhaustive, of problems specific historiográficos,
it is necessary to add the
methodological ones basic of the periodificación,
concerning to: 1)
the universality of the periodificación approaches;
2) the chronological cuts;
and 3) the functionality of the periodificación
outlines. It is necessary to
prevent against the tendency to underestimate the
importance of the problems
raised by the periodificación of the history. They
commit the same understanding
of the history. Reducing them to an operation of
courts, or of señalamientos,
merely chronological, it harms the same essence of
the historical processes,
which should be understood as an intricate
correlation of continuity
and change. This basic understanding of the
historical thing is the first one in
suffering damage by reason of the intents or
outlines of not well based,
arbitrarily carried out or overvalued periodificación.
Let us see, summarily, on
what they consist the specific problems. The
simultaneity of the processes of
«discovery», «it conquers» and «colonization»
it is an essential condition of
the global process, without the clear perception of
which is impossible to
capture the dynamics of the same one and mainly, to
understand
the respective papers carried out in him by the
Europeans and for the natives,
first, and for the American Creoles, then. The
historical lapse embraced by the
denominated processes of «discovery», «it
conquers» and «colonization» it
charges new significance when notices himself that,
in rigor, they extend until
the present, in areas of considerable extension,
since the full occupation of
the territory has not still been completed. From the
point of view of
the relacionamiento with the indigenous base, as
well as from that of the
significance of the paper carried out by the Creole
population and for the
resources generated in the own territory, the
continuity of the global process
is extremely developing, as it is also it for the
understanding in current ways
of that relacionamiento that you/they show scarce or
any essential variation of
those generated in the XVI century. The location of
the considered precursory
intents of the independence, has great importance
from 2 points of view: in the
first place, concerning the integral understanding
of the colonial, included
period the critical processes of the same one; in
second place, from the point
of view of the legitimation to ultranza of the
independence that has taken to
rake antecedent suppositions in times so early as
the historical logic tolerates
it. Comparable difficulties raise the location of
the independence, because what
puts at stake, this way, is the national vision of
the history of Venezuela. To
separate the colonial period of the national one
taking as
approach the declaration of independence, the
constitution of the First
Republic, or even the battle of Carabobo, leaves
outlined the problem of the
continuity of the colonial régime in portions of
the territory (Choir and
Maracaibo), as well as its reestablishment during
comparatively very lingering
periods (7 years in the county of Caracas). In other
words, thinks about the
problem of marking the initial landmark of the
independent Republic.Difficulties
also comparable it raises the location of the
Republic of Colombia, 1821-1830.
Does it owe considerársele it leaves of the
Independence? Is it the full
beginning of the independent Republic? Does it
constitute, in yes, a period of
the history of Venezuela, intermission between the
colonial one and the national
one? On the other hand, the delimitation of the
contemporary history raises
special difficulties, derived point of the school
periodificación, for traced a
lot of time of the French national history, like for
the prejudiced
identification of Juan Vicente Gómez long tyranny
with one century XIX
latifundista and caudillesco. Lastly, they should
take in consideration the
difficulties outlined by the correspondence between
the periodificación of the
history of Venezuela and the Eurus-western one, or
if one wants in other terms:
for the location of the process historical
Venezuelan in the supposedly
universal outline generated by the European
historiography. With the statement enters before to
consider the basic
methodological problem of the periodificación, and
in the first place its
universality. To this respect, León E. Halkin
recommends that: «Let us don't
forget that the classic divisions of the history, be
San Agustín's six times or
of the four ages of Hegel, they are not applied but
to the general history of
the Mediterranean and of West. They have not still
imagined at the same time
valid divisions for the art and for the
institutions, for China, Mexico, Russia
and France.
The usual divisions have been work of European; they
are made for European. For
it same it diminishes their importance. Their
accuracy is not much bigger, even
for the single Europe». It is not smaller the
difficulty outlined by the
chronological cuts, not already from the point of
view of the continuity and the
discontinuity of the history, in the sense of the
imbricación of the processes,
but from the point of view of the correlation of the
diverse historical times
that you/they are contemporary in a given moment. In
sum, enough indications as
to conclude, as for the significance of the
periodificación that this
constitutes a file or analytic resource of delicate
use, in the sense that their
employment should go accompanied by the preventions
of the case. Among these
they deserve to be underlined two: in the first
place, the periodificación is
not never innocua; in second place, only a white,
explicit and critical
foundation criteriológica makes useful the
employment of a periodificación
outline. Approaches continued in the periodificación
of the history of
Venezuela Before making a critical presentation of
the periodificación outlines
applied to the history of Venezuela, it is
convenient to try to sometimes
identify the approaches that have served them as
foundation, in explicit form,
the more than the times in implicit form. In this
respect it is necessary to
remark that the critical historiográfica allows to
identify this approaches,
even when the author of the outline has not had
conscience of his explanation.
This last one is the case of the generality of the
Venezuelan historians, and it
is the confirmation of this fact one of the
foundations that has allowed to
point out the lack of methodological elaboration as
one of the characteristics
of the Venezuelan historiography.
It seems possible to identify basic approaches of
periodificación of the history
of Venezuela: 1) the directly transferred of the
history «universal» Eurus-
western; 2) the corresponding to the perspective of
the national history; 3) the
specific one or ad hoc; 4) the chronological one; 5)
the characteristic of the
contemporary time; and 6) the historical one
integral.
The outlines of directly transferred periodificación
of the history «universal»
Eurus-western
they reveal their incongruity that surprises to the
critical spirit their
lingering validity, so easily of not being because
after her the irredeemable
aspiration of the Creole underlies to link its
history with that of the or the
European metropolises. The base of this adjournment
is the sequence Edad
Antigua, Half Age, Modern Age, Contemporary Age, for
which it becomes mandatory
to find equivalent in the process historical
Venezuelan, and that for the
same thing it commits the reconciliation among the
long period in which
registers the Eurus-western history and the short
period in which registers the
history of the Creole society, although to overcome
that obstacle throws hand
of the aboriginal past, transforming it into the
Edad Antigua or in the
Prehistory, according to the cases of the evolution
of the Creole society. The
periodificación outline based on the concept of
national history corresponds to
a moment of the history of the Venezuelan
historiography, lingering until the
present, in which the primordial objective was not
to form knowledge but
promoting the national project. In consequence, the
formulation of the same one
became the clearest indication that with him a new
period began and, what is
more, regarding which all that happened previously
became an antecedent. Of
there the division in colonial period and national
period. It is opportune to
point out that although it is been in general very
closing when speaking of
period or colonial history, they have not lacked
well historians that refute
this denomination, be for the purpose of raking in
him clear indications of the
nationality (they are mentioned Carlos' III
reformations then), well be to
differentiate the relationship with the Spanish
metropolis of the modern
imperialistic linking (it is used in this case the
denomination history or
provincial period, and it is alleged that the term
colony was outlawed
specifically by the metropolis). In the concerning
thing to the national period,
it can be pointed out that this denomination is not
always used, but rather it
usually uses as synonym the one of «republic»,
although making this doesn't
bear the acceptance of the denomination «period
monarchist» for the colonial
one, since the same conception of the national
history has been taken to the end
of denying authenticity to the monarchic past. It is
sought to affirm, in this
way that the Venezuelan society was never really
monarchic. The periodificación
outlines based on specific approaches or ad hoc are
referred to moments or
processes characteristic of the historical evolution
of Venezuela. They present
the difficulty that they reduce the possibilities of
understanding
from the historical processes when detaching them of
the categories of the
European universal history. The use of these
periodificación approaches
presupposes the specificity, or in any event a
certain degree of her, of the
historical evolution of the Venezuelan Creole
society. To this respect it is
necessary to formulate some considerations.
In the first place, «...hablar of a historical
process specifically Venezuelan
would be only possible if the very doubtful validity
of that specificity was
hidden, because for its historical development,
Venezuela (that is to say the
implanted society or Creole) inmersa has been and in
permanent linking,
regarding the European-western historical
development...» In second place,
«...sustraer to Venezuela of the square of the
history universal European would
mean to adopt a limited perspective, and until false
that would prevent to
understand the reality historical Venezuelan when
whisking away this way the
interaction, frequently decisive, with the universal
thing defined...» In third
place, «...si leaves of the acceptance of the bond
with the European universal
history, but without incurring in the simplismo of
seeking <to reproduce it> in
every period, the following periodificación could
maybe be admitted: Prehistory
(until the discovery, expert in sense beats); Modern
Age (whose limit would
depend of the approach that adopts in this respect
you); and Contemporary Age
(under equal conditions). But it won't be easy, for
many historians, to give up
a luck of Venezuelan feudalism without Half Age...»
In fourth place,
it seems licit to think that «...en that universal
mark would have space the
characterizations
and periodificaciones inspired by the specific thing
American, as well as in the
periodificación universal European they fit
regional and even national shades.
The error would be in transferring the whole
European universal periodificación
mechanically...» it is Maybe necessary to have
present that the history of the
society implanted Venezuelan is unwrapped in the
environment of the European
Modern Age, but under the conditions of America.
The periodificación outlines based on the
chronological approach hide, with
their apparent simplicity, all an intricate one
problematic methodological that
you can express as the frequent inadequacy between
the historical time and the
chronological time. Indeed, to distribute the
history in centuries and in years
it outlines difficult problems as for the continuity
of the historical
processes, but also as for the significance
characteristic of each one of the
lapses. For example, the imbricación has already
been pointed out between the
colonial period and the national one, but it would
also be necessary to adduce
that the century XVII Venezuelan is caught among a
vast and dense XVI century,
the one which not yet has concluded in almost a
third part of the Venezuelan
territory, and a not less dense XVIII century, which
survives fragmentarily in
some agricultural exploitations and in the sequels
of the slavery. Of course, it
continues him a larguísimo XIX century that some
authors prolong until the
decade of 1940. The situation is committed than the
years «holes». Obviously it
will be been able to object that such a situation
only expressed the
inadequacy of the available historical knowledge, or
their excessive subjection
to certain concepts of the historical thing. This
way, for the warlike
historiography the years of peace would be years
without history. The evident
inadequacy of the strictly chronological
periodificación applied to the history
universal European induced to adopt a periodificación
in times, which were defined on the base of
characteristic and not of
chronological landmarks. The periodificación of the
history of Venezuela
according to the national approach would be,
probably, its equivalent one. Also
the characterization and delimitation of the
contemporary time of the history of
Venezuela raises difficulties, some referred to the
process Venezuelan
sociohistórico, others referred to the history «universal»
Eurus-western. The
main source of difficulties for the delimitation is
constituted by the
historical significance of those almost Juan Vicente
Gómez government's 3
decades, and in turn, this significance is linked
with the deep trauma caused by
that fact in the intellectual conscience of the
Venezuelans. They are 2 the main
attitudes: the one of those who look for to oppress
that historical period
denying him all projection in the contemporary
modernity, and for they already
wrap up it with the commented stereotyped vision of
the XIX century; and the
one of those who look for mainly to mark the
difference with the subsequent
period, and for it doesn't have enough them to it
with identifying this last one
with the democracy but rather they also make it with
the XX century. In the
bottom, it is the same approach that took to Mariano
Picón Salas to point out as
landmark the year of 1941, to be more or less the
year of the first elections
democratic happened in Venezuela during the XX
century; or the one that induced
J.M. Gornés Mac Pherson to divide the «history of
free Venezuela» in 2 big
periods: that of the national independence and that
of the independence,
taking as approach the payment of the balance of the
foreign debt in 1930. Rubén
Carpio Castillo relates the coming of the XX
century, and with it of the
Contemporary Age, with the foundation of Democratic
Action. Obviously, if we
take like guide the occurrence of momentous facts,
the nationalization of the
petroleum could claim deserved attention, and with
they would get complicated it
more the things.
To these difficulties those should be added arisen
of the linking of the history
of Venezuela with the «universal» Eurus-western.
There are 3 areas, at least, in
those that one manifests this situation: in the
first place, the still not
completely overcome delimitation of the Contemporary
Time starting from French
Revolution; in second place, taking as landmark for
the humanity everything, and
consequently also for Venezuela, the Russian
Revolution; and lastly, the
pretendidamente skilled solution of taking as
approach the one of «the most
recent history», what doesn't make but transferring
the problem. A specific
methodological study proposes as point of beginning
of the Venezuelan
Contemporary Age
the Second World War, with a phase or transition
stage that it embraces the
years 1928-1936-1945. The periodificación, been
founded in an integral
historical approach, seeks to take exactly that is
to say as central element
what constitutes the obstacle of other outlines, the
continuity of the
historical processes; the coexistence of different
historical times,
expressed in the high level of contemporaneidad of
the formation historical
Venezuelan; and the simultaneity of the processes
conformativos picked up in the
installation concept (for example, a XVI century
that runs until the present in
the ways of the relacionamiento with the aboriginal
societies). The purpose of
capturing this imbricación of simultaneous,
continuous and interrelated
processes, took to adopt the division in phases,
without being held to strict
chronological terms, like it will be seen later on.
As will have been possible
to appreciate, this intent of identification of the
basic approaches continued
in the outlines of periodificación of the history
of Venezuela admits the
possibility of diverse combinations of the same
ones. It is more, it can be
affirmed that in rigor, they don't usually apply
scatteredly. Certainly that it
contributes to create this situation «...la lack of
legitimation methodological
observable in the periodificación outlines
elaborated by the Venezuelan
historiography...», and which is noticed equally in
the periodificaciones that
derived patterns of the universal historiography
continue and in the outlines ad
hoc, and the absence of methodological legitimation
is manifested so much
in the use of the chronological order as in the
followed approaches to break
into fragments it. In the first case it is observed
that confusion exists
between the long one and the short historical
period, and this until the point
that you ends up demarcating periods in whose
hardship is impossible to think
that they could be formed and to acquire full entity
characteristic historical
forms, not already structural but even secondary:
this way, we find periods that
are equal to centuries, decades and even half a
decade, located in a plane of
correspondence that was historically untenable. As
for the periodificación
approaches, these are usually more or less uncertain
and in general they change
in the development outline, with what the
periodificación loses all sense.
To appreciate the game of the approaches of followed
periodificación better in
the outlines of periodificación of the history of
Venezuela, it is useful to
pass magazine to some representative examples,
containing them in 3 big items:
1) that of the inspired ones in the most usual
outlines in the history
«universal» Eurus-western; 2) that of the inspired
ones in specific approaches
or ad hoc, and 3) the one based on the integral
historical approach.
Concerning the inspired outlines directly in those
more used in the
historiography «universal» Eurus-western, and
about which it has already been
said that they are generally a methodological
adjournment, it usually plays with
the outline Edad Antigua, Half Age, Modern Age and
Contemporary Age, as made it
Eloy G. González, when referring to Simón Bolívar,
it differentiated their luck
of that of Francisco of Miranda in «our old age»
and that of J.M. Vargas in «our
half age». Francisco Javier Yanes, toward 1840, it
had divided the history of
Venezuela in «old» and «contemporary», taking as
dividing the independence. On
the other hand, Felipe will Knit, in his Manual of
history of Venezuela, it
used the division among «old history» and «modern
history», subdividing this
last one in turn. It is necessary to make some señalamientos
as for the use of
the directly inspired outlines in the periodificación
of the history «universal»
Eurus-western. In the first place it is necessary to
refer to the relationship
that you/they keep with the outlines based on
specific approaches or ad hoc. It
is possible to think that the inspired ones in the
history «universal» they
govern for the long period, while the other ones
make it for the short one
and the brief period. But this distinction loses
force when we notice that
almost a lifetime historical of Venezuela it lapses
in the Modern Age, before
which would only be necessary to speak of an
extensive and diffuse it was before
Columbus or prehispanic, that would make completely
impossible to think of some
equivalent of the ages Antigua and Half Europeans.
On the other hand, well it
can be thought that the employment of that
periodificación for Eloy G. González,
Francisco Javier Yanes and Felipe will Knit «...no
responds to a similarity or
correspondence of its historical contents with its
equivalent ones European, but
only to the purpose of marking landmarks or stages
that allowed to differentiate
studies of the historical life of Venezuela...» In
the case of Eloy G. González
the Edad Antigua would be a period of uncertain
beginning that would close with
the achievement of the independence, beginning the
Half Age then, which would
culminate in some moment before the publication from
its work To the margin of
the epic poem (1906).
It is very marked the chronological disproportion
between both periods, because
the Half Age would cover less than one century. In
the case of the
periodificación settled down by Felipe will Knit,
if we take into account the
date of 1873, in which appears prefaced, as well as
the fact that for modern
history understands each other the one that begins
in 1821, it is clear the non
correspondence with the concept of modern history
used in the historiography
«universal» Eurus-western: this way, the Edad
Antigua of Venezuela (from
1500 until ends of the XVIII century) it would
correspond to the European Modern
Age, while the Age Modern Venezuelan would
correspond to a part of the European
Contemporary Age, according to the classic
periodificación that makes pull up
this of 1789.
Concerning the outlines of leaning periodificación
in specific approaches or ad
hoc, is necessary to observe, in the first place
that vary following a rule
given by the periodificación outline that
distinguishes basically among Colony,
Independence and Republic, according to a political
approach. In the colonial
period the aboriginal past is included as antecedent
and denominated stages are
demarcated «discovery», «it conquers» and «colonization»,
without fixing
approach regarding the simultaneity or sequence of
the same ones.
TheIndependence is usually fractioned in «republics»,
also settling down a
bigger diferenciación among 2 stages delimited
starting from the constitution of
the Republic of Colombia, and in «years». When
considering this periodificación
pattern's samples critically, it can be concluded
that their character ad hoc
more than to mean an intent of reception of the
specific thing of the process
historical Venezuelan, it demonstrates subordination
to the historically
incidental thing, if it is that it doesn't denote
interpretive outrage. Rafael
María Baralt established this periodificación
pattern when dividing his work in
2 parts: They summarize of the history of Venezuela
from the discovery of their
territory for the Castilian in the XV century, until
the year 1797 and they
Summarize of the history of Venezuela from the year
of 1797 until that of 1830
(1841-1843). When taking John the Baptist conspiracy
Picornell, Manuel Gual and
José María España like dividing between the
colonial period and the beginning of
the Independence, sat down the rule of isolating of
the period previous to the
independence and their prolegómenos. Guillermo Tell
Villegas, in their work
popular Instruction in Venezuela (1899), being
founded in an expressed political
approach, it distinguished 4 stadiums or political
phases: «...Primera. That of
the time that remained under the government from
Spain, that is to say you the
colonial one that began August of 1498, 1 in that
the Iberian caravelsdiscovered
our costs, and their boss took possession from our
country to name of the Crown
of Castile, up to April of 1810, 19 in that the
country, illuminated politically
for the brand of the French revolution, and with the
conscience of his right, he
took the first step that separated it of the native
mother. Second. That of the
war, begun with Spain that rejected the demand, and
finished in the glorious
field of Carabobo June 24 1821. Third. The one that
in 1821 it began in the
cradle, and in 1830 it finished in the tomb of
Colombia, of that colossal
Republic that arose to create an illusion and to
engender a hope. Fourth.
That of their autonomy that dates from 1830 in that,
separating the Colombian
unit, had a seat among the sovereign nations...» it
Surprises, in this
outliine, the ingenuousness in thechronological
demarcation of the stadiums that
arrives until pointing out year, month and day,
without taking in consideration
the imbricación of the political processes. Equally
calls the attention the
chronological imbalance among the stadiums. José
Gil Fortoul, in their
constitutional History of Venezuela (1907), it
introduced a variant inspired by
the constitutional classification. It distinguishes
a first period denominated
Colony that culminates in 1809, with what differs
significantly of the outline
applied by Baralt, since it considers the first
symptoms of the political crisis
of the colonial society as part of the colonial
period. The second period, «The
Independence», begins in 1810 and it culminates
with the «Breakup of Colombia»
and the death of Bolivar, in 1830. The third period,
«Rebuilding of the
Republic. The Conservative Oligarchy», begins in
1830 and closes
with the events of January 24 1848. The fourth
period, «The Liberal Oligarchy»,
extends up to 1863. Also, previó other denominated
periods «The Federation»,
«The Autocracy»,
The Eclecticism» and «The Restoration», with what
would have paid tribute to the
merely incidental thing until weakening all their
outline, in which the most
novel thing the periodificación of the lapse
1830-1863 that has lasted until
today was. Regarding this periodificación outline,
which enriches the basic
outline respecting it in the essential thing, is
opportune to point out that in
their conception it weighs the author's approach
constitutionalist a lot, which
takes him to center their history in the evolution
in the constitutional way,
although without disregarding the rising political
practice. As for their
demarcation in «oligarchies», it seemed that
didn't have for object defining
historical periods in strict sense, but rather it
constitutes a methodological
resource to differentiate stadiums of a republican
period that, when appearing
undivided, would suggest a deceiving homogeneity.
This last would allow to
understand, in passing, the sequence of successive
microestadios that the author
didn't end up trying. That is to say that in that
way their periodificación
would be reduced to the 3 basic periods: Colony,
Independence and
Republic.
In the extensive range of the periodificación
outlines based on approaches ad
hoc, they occupy a special place those that take
those «you revolutionize» as
landmarks. Andrés Puts on he offers in his work How
to save Venezuela a
specially eloquent sample of this periodificación
gender. It distinguishes «nine
periods of revolutions»: 1810-1819; 1819-1830;
1830-1846; 1846-1858; 1858-1863;
1863-1868; 1868-1870; 1870-1900 and 1900-1935 (the
work was published in 1936).
In this outline it is clearly perceptible the
chronological disproportion among
the periods, as well as the fact that in the most
lingering in them, that is to
say the one that runs between 1900 and 1935, didn't
have, according to
the author revolutions «...en the technical sense
of the word [...] only some
hand blows, non insurrections...», what means that
it is not governed approach
equally that the precedent periods. Being largely
subtracted to the basic
pattern of periodificación enriched by José Gil
Fortoul, in recent years has
intended some periodificación outlines that fit
also in the item of those been
founded in approaches ad hoc, even when some of them
incorporates new component
historiográficos and ideological. Among these
outlines interests to comment
especially, for their projection prolonged in the
Venezuelan historiography, the
employee for Carlos Irazábal in their fundamental
work, Toward the democracy. It
distinguishes 5 denominated periods: «The Colony»,
«The Independence, «The
democratic régime is not stabilized», «The womb
of the absolutism» and «Toward
the democracy». In rigor, the last one is not
properly one period but a
prospective ideological-politics. To constitute the
work rather a group of
rehearsals that a systematic exhibition of the
process historical Venezuelan, is
not easy to establish the correspondence with
chronological demarcations. It is
not exaggerated to also say that the periodificación
on which is erected
combines the traditional thing with the incidental
thing, it doesn't seem to
obey clear, much less expressed approaches, and the
most significant thing, it
doesn't evidence the purpose of elaborating a
periodificación outline been
founded in the historical materialism, of which is
advanced however in the
sciences social Venezuelans. Similar considerations,
as for the methodological
indetermination and criteriológica, they can be
made about the outline
elaborated by Federico Brito Figueroa for their
economic and social History of
Venezuela.
It distinguishes 3 big periods: «The Formation of
Venezuela», «Venezuela XIX
century» and «Venezuela XX century» and in this
last one, it establishes 2
times: «Venezuela in the time of the imperialistic
penetration» and «The time of
the neocolonialismo». The foundation criteriológica
of this periodificación
outline is not clear, because it combines the
traditional chronological
structuring with a vision of the XX century not
inspired by a Marxist conception
elaborated.
Concerning the periodificación based on an integral
historical approach, fits
to say that it constitutes an intent of
methodological replanteamiento of the
periodificación of the history of Venezuela,
assisting to the group of the
historical factors, and overcoming the
periodificaciones been founded in the
«universal» Eurus-western and in the approaches ad
hoc. The completed
proposition, in this sense, serves from structure to
the work historical-
social Formation of Venezuela, elaborated by the
team sociohistórico of the
Center of Studies of the Development of the Central
University of Venezuela. On
the base of a systematic methodological inquiry,
referred so much to the group
of the Latin American societies as to the
Venezuelan, a periodificación approach
was adopted that obeys to a new perception of the
specificity of the formation
social Venezuelan, based on 2 fundamental features:
1. «...La unit of the
process sociohistórico of the formation social
Venezuelan can even not be
analyzed as an installation process concluded, 2.
The high contemporaneidad
degree...» In each moment of that development
sociohistórico the simultaneous
and articulate presence of elements is appreciated
generated in different
moments of that development. This way, the present
reality is constituted of a
simultaneity of elements